Leaping Lizards ! hyperinfinity, which concepts can never span, by that reality gives concepts space to evolve freely forever --
actually timelessly (infinities of time lines criss crossing every which witch way -- we may say, all at once always) -- I'm pleased to see how metaphors are multiplying, proliferating, beyond true or false, as arbitrary art full wonder games -- I feel appreciated by Steve Smith's appreciations -- an encouraging experience for this soul stream -- as words become free and hyper tantalizing, so also follows the collaborative creativity we label as prosaic daily life -- words are the railroad tracks we hastily lay down before us as our loco motives charge forward, forward, through the days -- no boxes to think outside of, just vast sensitive supple potent space, within which living, moving, being evolve -- really, with increasing integrity, freedom, compassion, creativity, love, awareness, joy, as God is so helping us all... within the fellowship of service, Rich On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Glen - > >>> I'm still enjoying my illusion of free-will and get a little skitchy >>> around overstated pre-determination (or a fully mechanistic model of the >>> universe?). This is probably just a twitch itself? >> >> Well, the twitch ontology doesn't make any statements about free will or >> illusions or any of that. It only minimizes what would be inside an >> actor's boundary if such a boundary exists. That's why it will work for >> objectivists or constructivists. > > do you have any references I could follow? The "Twitch Ontology" would be > new to me (excepting what you just wrote). It felt as if it explained human > behaviour as an automaton, but obviously more than that? > >> >> That minimal kernel is simply a source of "energy", the impetus to move, >> say, do, act in whatever way your constraints allow you to. If you only >> have 1 DoF, then every twitch will place you on points in that >> dimension. If you have N DsoF, then you'll (eventually) end up sampling >> the space bounded by those constraints. >> >> So, there are no types of twitch, there is only twitch. That doesn't >> imply any sort of determinism. In fact, it might argue for >> nondeterminism. > > I like to distinguish determinism from predictability. If I understand your > concept of twitch, there is no choice to be made, but the outcome of > coupled, cascading twitches (actors acting interactively?) can only be > determined by running the twitching simulation forward? > >>> You have referred to yourself in the past as a "simulant" which I took >>> to mean that you are a professional creator of "simulations" (simulation >>> scientist?) despite the fact that it was too close to "Replicant" from >>> Blade Runner and sounded more like you were claiming that "you" were >>> just a somewhat modularized region in a giant simulation. >> >> I mean it in both senses, circularity, ambiguity. I am part of the >> simulations I help create. > > I think Rich and I (at least) would grant you that. > >> But I don't say it to distinguish me from >> anyone else. I actually think we're all simulants. > > A given in the rhetoric of the discussion I think. > >> The manifested >> effects of your twitch may seem to fall into an entirely different >> taxonomy (e.g. music or paper mache bagels with cream cheese) > > yes... > >> , but it's >> still constructed and it's still _similar_ to something else. Hence >> everything we construct is a simulation of something. And everything we >> construct is a (complementary, reflective, inverted) simulation of >> ourselves, like a glove is a simulation of the hand. > > Echoes of echoes of reflections of folds of reflections of postive/negative > space. > >>> In some circles it is a truism the "we are what we eat"... which >>> suggests that someone who "eats simulations" for a living is likely to >>> "become a simulation" at least in their own mind. Or perhaps it is your >>> twitch that you *are* a simulation scientist *because* you see the world >>> as one grande simulation and the ones you create and execute are just >>> modularized simulations within the simulation? >> >> Excellent! But, no. I'm the type of simulant I am because, for >> whatever ontogenic, hysterical constraints, the only/best thing I can >> manipulate is rhetoric (which includes deduction in the form of >> instructions for machines). > > Well said. > >> That region of my constraint box was more >> open, perhaps more densely meshed than other regions. If my twitch had >> emerged in a baseball player's constraint box, then the simulations I'd >> be a part of would be much different. > > Flingin spittballz? > >>> "I" am also not completely an illusion. >> >> Right. You're a wiggly twitch exploring your constraints. So say we all. > > So say we all! > > - Steve > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
